BThe sentence imposed in respect of the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm is quashed. A sentence of eight years and six months’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years and three months’ imprisonment is substituted.
Mr Hutchison attacked his partner on three occasions. At the time he was already serving a sentence of home detention for charges unrelated to the present offending. The first incident, in December 2015, involved threats with a filleting knife, a struggle (in which the complainant received serious cuts to her fingers and one to her chest) and an assault with a cigarette lighter (which caused bleeding).[1] The second incident, in January 2016, involved kicking, stomping and punching in what the sentencing judge, Judge Davidson, called a “frenzied physical attack”.[2] After the offending Mr Hutchison gave the complainant Tramadol medication to relieve her pain. The third incident occurred two days later and involved a violent, prolonged beating using a metal-legged bar stool.[3] The blows tore through the tissue on one of the complainant’s legs and damaged an adjacent door, splattering it with blood. These two incidents together left the complainant with a perforated ear drum, serious contusions on the back of her head, neck, chin, back, groin and limbs and (where the bar stool tore her leg tissue) the need for a skin graft to repair her leg wound.
[1]This gave rise to three charges: threatening to cause grievous bodily harm (Crimes Act 1961, s 306(1) with a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment); injuring with intent to injure (s 189(2) maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment); and assault with a weapon (s 202C(a)(a) with a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment).
[2]R v Hutchison [2017] NZDC 26181 at [5]. That gave rise to the charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s 189(1) which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
[3]Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (Crimes Act, s 188(1) with a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment).
The complainant is permanently scarred and has been diagnosed with post‑traumatic stress disorder. Her physical recovery was lengthy, causing her to lose her job. Her memory has been affected by her injuries. She now lives overseas, in part in consequence of this offending.
Mr Hutchison was sentenced to six years and nine months’ imprisonment. The Crown now appeals that sentence, submitting that it is manifestly inadequate.
Sentencing at the District Court
A sentence indication was given of eight and a half years’ imprisonment. It was…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Solicitor-General v Hutchison
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Solicitor-General v Hutchison [2018] NZCA 162
Case
[2018] NZCA 162
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this appeal, the Crown challenged the sentence imposed by the District Court on Chase Hutchison, who had attacked his partner on three occasions while he was serving a sentence of home detention for unrelated charges. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court of Appeal accepted that the Crown's appeal against sentence was well-founded. The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence imposed in respect of the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and substituted a sentence of eight years and six months' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years and three months' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed, six years and nine months' imprisonment, was manifestly inadequate, and required correction. The Court of Appeal noted that the original sentence indication of eight years and six months' imprisonment would have been within range. The Court of Appeal noted that the offending involved the use of a weapon, serious injury was inflicted and the attacks have had, and will continue to have, long-term physical and psychological effects on the complainant. The Court of Appeal also noted that the commission of the offending in the domestic home aggravated the offending. The Court of Appeal found that the starting point adopted by the sentencing judge was out of range and manifestly inadequate. The Court of Appeal found that the Crown's submissions in relation to the discounts for remorse, rehabilitation and the psychological explanation for offending, and the full 25 per cent guilty plea discount, were warranted. The Court of Appeal found that the discounts for remorse, rehabilitation and the psychological explanation for offending, and the full 25 per cent guilty plea discount, were unwarranted. The Court of Appeal found that a sentence of nine years and six months' imprisonment was appropriate.